How to eradicate poverty in Singapore

[brattzz]

well, it's a free forum, so everyone can chip in their few cents/punts,

I think what earned readers can do is to do up an executive summary on the various points (minus the punts/noises).

There is still immense value left in this!

[Temperament]

The funny thing is 50 years to date 60% of the population still agreed with our "style" of GOV. What gives? Don't like why still 60%? Maybe the roots of Asian "cultural mentality" run deep. The GOV of the day is always our voice right or left(wrong). Boh Pian.
Prof. Tommy Koh's pet peeve is why till today Singapore can't have an ombudsman.
Of course you know why. Don't you?

[cif5000]

I am not sure is there a way to define poverty. Most people seems to be fixated by a fixed number - eg. a family income of $2000 is considered as poor or whatever.
But, in real life, poverty is a moving standard depending on the wealth distribution and prices of good and services. However, to the poor people, only the affordability of the basic necessities matters.

From Wikipedia, poverty can be classified as absolute and relative. You have rightly pointed out the difference between a moving standard (relative poverty) and basic necessities (absolute poverty).

IMO, the government of any state should do whatever possible, including dipping into reserves and even borrowing from neighbours, to "leave no man behind" in absolute poverty. This is far easier than fighting relative poverty especially when one has a disproportionately huge reserve to tap on compared to the number of people in need.

Relative poverty in itself is neither good nor bad. There will be wealth disparity in any economy. It is the job of the policy makers to ensure fairness in the system. This is very difficult and I believe the system has worked well for people. e.g. just imagine imposing a restriction in buying stocks if one is below certain income?!?!

[Temperament]

Agreed.
In theory, you can define absolute poverty and relative poverty. But when they meet, how to distinguish the in between?
Is that one of the reasons our GOV doesn't want to draw a clear line who is poor and need state assistance? Or what?

[specuvestor]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that as with any discussion on the current sociopolitical climate in Singapore, it will inevitably degenerate into a seemingly pro and anti establishment arguments. Its fine since we are debating ideologies and like a 'immovable object vs unstoppable force' scenario, its unlikely either side will convince the other of their POV.

But when the argument starts to twist and corrupt the core of our discussion to perpetuate their POV, then the discussion quickly become a little tiresome.

When we are talking about 'welfare state', the general accepted definition is '"concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization." [Taken from wiki ]

Contrast that with what has been purported as a Singapore version of Welfare State in this thread, and I hope you see where my comments are coming from. Stuffs are just being throw in this thread in the hope that something, anything negative about the govt policies stick.

Nothing further to add. So no further comments from me.

Excellent clarification. Some words have meanings change throughout the years. The word "discriminate" has a negative vibe about it though it is a very important aspect of human psyche and was meant to be a neutral word.

Both "Welfare" and "Distribution of Wealth" has been used sparringly by people to propagate certain misconceptions. Just like linking HDB upgrades to elections, or that voting is compulsory (you will just be kicked out of the electoral roll). It's a political game.

Anything to the extreme is bad 中庸之道 is the way. If welfare is promoted as a populist tool, it becomes unsustainable and devastating. LKY remarked correctly that it is easy to give but extremely diffcult to take back. Objective of Welfare is simple: create environment where anyone willing will be able to get out of poverty trap and subsidise conditions that are involuntary for eg medical, handicap, retrenchments,etc. It is obvious in both cases, the poor are the most hard hit and hence they are more on the receiving end of welfare.

Nonetheless government function in itself is a socialist idea. Welfare has to be balanced with incentive structures that promotes excellence and meritocracy. Singapore's system has been rather balanced but I think have come short on the welfare part, which they are trying to correct now, and too long on the meritocracy part that it is becoming elitist. The latter issue, perception or otherwise, will be more difficult to correct with entrenched interests.

[NTL]

No welfare? Welfare is always there, just that it is given to those who we deem as deserving. In a meritocratic society, welfare is reserved for the very best. They deserve it. People at the bottom don't deserve it because they are deem undeserving. It is a waste of resources to help them. That's why we don't like to provide too much welfare for the poor.

Not true. There are assistance provided for poor students, there are assistance provided for poor parents, there are assistance provided for poor family, there are assistance provided for poor elderly, there are assistance provided for the disabled, there are assistance provided for the sick.

[NTL]

My friend like to say 'link Ministers pay to multiples of the lowest quartile". Incentive will motivate behavior.

What is the point? At the end, the lower 20% or 5% will still feel poor coz the price of goods will increase. There is no end to this.

[Clement]

I think it's good that our citizens are starting to demand more out of our government. Sure, some of the demands can become unreasonable, but as they say "progress depends on the unreasonable man." We pay our government officials very well to try to solve complex problems and reconcile the different requirements to our social and economic needs, not to play safe and maintain the status quo. While it's true that welfare programs are hard to scale back once implemented, it does not excuse the welfare is taboo mentality.

I don't think there is anything wrong with meritocracy and rewarding success, but it is worth a thought that our society can be rather harsh when it comes to failure. If we are to be a innovative society, we need not only to create incentives for people to succeed but also reduce the consequences of failure.

[specuvestor]

No welfare? Welfare is always there, just that it is given to those who we deem as deserving. In a meritocratic society, welfare is reserved for the very best. They deserve it. People at the bottom don't deserve it because they are deem undeserving. It is a waste of resources to help them. That's why we don't like to provide too much welfare for the poor.

Not true. There are assistance provided for poor students, there are assistance provided for poor parents, there are assistance provided for poor family, there are assistance provided for poor elderly, there are assistance provided for the disabled, there are assistance provided for the sick.

Not disagreeing but just to highlight some structural issues that some people on the ground are complaining about: IIRC there is assistance for transport as well. To claim that you need to fill up a form

Those who needs to claim few $ for transport is required to fill up an english written form. (That's why GST rebates makes more sense)

IIRC one episode that left a bad taste was that a decade back they raised ministers salary to ~$1.2m due to good econ growth but refused to raise the poor subsidy to $300 or something. These are the things why people feel the elitists are out of touch.

My friend like to say 'link Ministers pay to multiples of the lowest quartile". Incentive will motivate behavior.

What is the point? At the end, the lower 20% or 5% will still feel poor coz the price of goods will increase. There is no end to this.

The point is it will motivate the ministers to think about the plight of the lower quartile populace rather than how to make Singapore a richman's playground.

Relative poverty will always be there. It is a statistical fact. Point is how to narrow the wealth gap.

[specuvestor]

I don't think there is anything wrong with meritocracy and rewarding success, but it is worth a thought that our society can be rather harsh when it comes to failure. If we are to be a innovative society, we need not only to create incentives for people to succeed but also reduce the consequences of failure.

Totally agree. Taking back the entrepenuer award from Nanz Chong when her $2 shop closed is not mocking her; it is mocking the establishment mindset.